Leap to revoke the credit agreement: What is the deadline? – The cancellation of a loan is tied to a specific period of time. The Federal Supreme Court decides on two different exemption clauses In two different cases, the Supreme Court had to prove the validity of the right of revocation in consumer credit agreements. The decisions make statements on the common wording of the withdrawal “the written application for a contract”, the correct submission of the application and its expiry. The circumstances in which the right of revocation in consumer credit agreements is ineffective continue to lead to legal disputes between debtors and credit institutions.
Two further proceedings have now been decided by the BGH, in which the borrowers as applicants request the repayment of already concluded loans even after the expiry of the opposition period. In the first case (BGH, judgment of default of 21.2.2017 – II ZR 467/15), in 2007 the parties concluded two interlibrary loan agreements amounting to EUR 70,000 and EUR 100,000 respectively.
The defendant credit institutions have informed the debtors of their right to object in the following terms: a copy of this cancellation policy, a contract document, your written loan application or a copy of the contract document or your loan application, including the General Terms and Conditions of Credit, the information to which the policyholders are entitled by the policyholder or the insurer will receive the commitment….. The loan is provided to the defendant according to the provisions on distance contracts (313c para. 2 no. 1 BGB in conjunction with 1 BGB InfoV), but not before the date of the conclusion of the loan,
The timely notification of the opposition is sufficient to meet the deadline. In decay cases, the BGH had to decide whether an explanation action is possible. Already in the previous instance, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich had decided that the loan agreements were “converted” by the revocation in return obligations. The Federal Supreme Court ruled in its ruling that BuyNer informed its debtors correctly about the right of objection and that the text of the directives had withstood the examination by the Federal Court of Justice.
Real estate loan with fix interest
According to this statement, it is not yet clear how, after settlement of the reciprocal claims, an application for benefits after resignation should be possible, since after settlement of the compensation claims of the banks, but not of the borrower, there is a regular right to compensation. The second case (BGH, order of 19 January 2017 – 16 May ZR 381/16) concerned a real estate loan in the amount of EUR 106,000, which was closed in 2006 with a fixed interest period of 10 years.
At the same time, the borrowers and a bank employee signed the contract documents submitted for the first time. The enclosed revocation instructions included the following recipes: were provided. the ones listed below. “In the summer of 2014, the owners sold their property and entered into a” termination agreement “with the house bank and paid an early termination penalty of EUR 4,569.82 – subject to a review of the loan agreement including the cancellation policy.
A little later, the contract was revoked by the borrowers. The BGH came to the conclusion when interpreting the preconceived cancellation policy that they were not sufficiently clear. Contrary to the legal status that governs the contractual relations between the contracting parties, it can be understood that the period of withdrawal begins regardless of whether the consumer has made his contractual declaration.
It did not matter whether or not the debtor correctly understood the facts in the face-to-face meeting at the signing of the contract. The BGH further confirmed its earlier view that a cancellation agreement in the context of a loan repayment does not prevent a later withdrawal. The not yet addressed question, whether the plaintiff with the resignation against good will violates, the district court Krefeld now has to clarify.